Leading article: Abused by America, betrayed by Britain

When three British residents were finally released from the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay last December, it was assumed by many that that marked the end, if not of the affront the Cuban camp presents to civilised values, then at least of Britain's direct moral responsibilities to its inmates. Not so. One UK resident remains interned in Cuba.

Binyam Mohamed came to Britain as a refugee from Ethiopia in 1994 and was given leave to remain here. But then came the 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington and America's lamentable decision, in response, to ignore the conventions of international law in pursuit of its enemies.

Related articles

• The last Briton in Guantanamo faces death penalty
• Click here to have your say
• Clive Stafford Smith: Why has the Government forsaken Binyam Mohamed?

Mr Mohamed was arrested by Pakistani immigration officials at Karachi airport in 2002 on his way back to Britain. He was sent first to Afghanistan, then to a prison in Morocco for 18 months, before finally being transferred to Cuba. Mr Mohammed has been in Guantanamo for more than four years now. During that time, he has taken part in a hunger strike. More recently, he has exhibited signs of mental disturbance and suicidal depression. A letter by Mr Mohamed will be delivered to Downing Street today, pleading for the Government to petition for his release.

But the US government has other plans for Mr Mohamed. The American military claims he received firearms and explosives training alongside the shoe-bomber Richard Reid in Afghanistan, and that he planned to blow up a US residential block. Mr Mohamed's lawyers expect him to be brought before one of Guantanamo's special military commissions very soon. If convicted, he could face the death penalty. Yet these charges are likely to be based on evidence acquired through torture. Mr Mohamed claims he was beaten, scalded and had his genitals slashed with a scalpel while imprisoned in Morocco. Any confession induced through such methods ought to be inadmissible. If the US is determined to put Mr Mohamed on trial, it needs to be done in a proper court, not one of these deeply questionable tribunals.

Consider their deficiencies. Mr Mohamed's defence lawyer will be appointed by the military. And his legal representative will have only limited access to the evidence against the defendant. Meanwhile, the standard of proof required for conviction will be much lower than in any normal court. The judge will even accept evidence collected though "coercion". This does not even come close to being a fair trial.

Mr Mohamed has not only been disgracefully abused by the American military; he appears to have been betrayed by Britain, too. Mr Mohamed's lawyers believe our Government has proof that their client's testimony was obtained under torture. They have established that Mr Mohamed was questioned by British intelligence for three hours in Pakistan and that the Government knew he was about to sent to Morocco. His lawyers are seeking a British judicial review of his case that will flush out any information that might help his defence.

Guantanamo has been a revolting stain on America's global reputation. But the tardy manner in which our Government has gone about securing the release of its own citizens and residents sucked into this mockery of justice has hardly been to our national credit. And, if it is true that a blind eye has been turned to the torture of Mr Mohamed, Britain's behaviour will have been just as reprehensible.

Guantanamo needs to be shut down. The most significant contribution our own Government can make to this end is by presenting our US allies with a clear choice: either give Mr Mohamed a fair trial, or else ensure his immediate release.